12. Setophaga picta, Swain. PAINTED REDSTART.-♂ and, Chiracahua Mountains, April 7, 1880. 13. Pipilo aberti, Baird. ABERT'S TOWHEE.-, Big Sandy Creek, Arizona, Feb. 7, 1880. 14. Aphelocoma sordida arizonæ, Ridg. ARIZONA JAY. —Three specimens, two ♂, one ?, Chiracahua Mountains, taken April 6-7, 1880. 15. Empidonax fulvifrons pallescens, Coues. BUFFBREASTED FLYCATCHER. , Chiracahua Mountains, April, 12, 1880. 16. Centurus uropygialis, Baird. GILA WOODPECKER., Tucson, March 8, 1880. 17. Colaptes chrysoides (Malh.) Baird. FLICKER.-, Tucson, March 7, 1880. MALHERBE'S THE remaining families of Nitzsch's Picariæ (i.e. the Coccygomorphæ of Huxley) stand associated together in our 'Nomenclator' under the name Coccyges, given to them by Sundevall in 1835 (K. Vet.-Ac. Handl. 1835, p. 69), and are divided according to the structure of their feet nearly after the plan suggested by Prof Huxley (P. Z. S. 1867, p. 466). I fear, however, that this is not likely to be a permanent arrangement. Although we may not at once go to the length of following Prof. Garrod in separating the whole class of Birds into "Homalogonata" and "Anomalogonatæ," there can, I think, be no question that some weight must, in future, be allowed to the presence or absence of the ambiens muscle, and that it must be allowed that the Cuculidæ and Musophagidæ, in possessing this character and in other respects, stand per se among the Picariæ of Nitzsch, and show much affinity with the Gallinæ. I believe therefore that it will *From the "Ibis," 4th Ser., Vol. IV, pp. 399-411, Oct., 1880. be better for the future to restrict the term Coccyges to these two families. The question then is, what shall we do with the remaining groups of the order? The arrangement of them by the structure of the feet, according to Prof. Huxley's scheme, although very simple, is not quite natural. Leptosoma, for instance (as I believe I first showed in 1865*), although the outer toe is more or less reversed, must certainly come near the Rollers (Coraciida); and Colius would now appear to be nearly related to the same group,† although its foot-structure is by no means similar. There seem in fact to be several different categories combined in the order Coccyges thus considered. First we have the Lipoglossæ of Nitzsch, consisting of the four families Alcedinidæ, Bucerotida, Upupidæ, and Irrisoridæ. These all belong to the Piciformes of Garrod,§ and all the best authorities are pretty well agreed as to their consanguinity. Along with these must come the Cuculinæ calopteræ or Todide of Nitzsch, containing also four families, which, to my mind, are also closely related · namely the Meropidæ, Coraciida, Momotidæ, and Todide. The two last-named groups are united by Garrod into one family.|| They all four have twelve tail-feathers, a naked oil-gland, and сӕса. But to these must be added, as aberrant appendages (which sadly mar the uniformity of the group), the Leptosomidæ and Podargidæ and, as it would appear from Prof. Garrod's researches, the Coliida. Leptosoma, as stated above, is clearly more allied to the Rollers than to any other form. Podargus cannot be left with the Caprimulgidæ, looking to the conformation of its palatal bones,¶ and comes in best here, whereas Nyctibius belongs truly to the Caprimulgida.†† After Garrod's exhaustive disquisition on Steatornis, §§ we can no longer complain that its structure is unknown; but it becomes still more difficult, owing to its numerous peculiarities, to arrange this most extraordinary bird in a satisfactory place in the series. It must certainly be either put in here or placed as a separate order next to the Striges. Perhaps the former plan is for the present the most convenient. * P. Z. S. 1865, p. 682. Mr. Sharpe, in making the Leptosominæ merely a subfamily of Coraciida (Ibis, 1871, p. 285), appears to have entirely overlooked the structure of the feet. + Cf. Garrod, P. Z. S. 1876, p. 416. Pterylography, p. 102. § P. Z. S. 1874, p. 117. See P. Z. S. 1870, p. 101. Huxley, P. Z, S. 1867, p. 445. ++Huxley, l. c. p. 454. § P. Z. S. 1873. p. 526. With these additions the Anisodactylæ, as we have called them in our Nomenclator,' will consist of the following twelve families: : 1. Coliidæ. 2. Alcedinidæ. 4. Upupidæ. 5. Irrisoridæ. 6. Meropidæ. 7. Momotidæ. 8. Todidæ. 9. Coraciidæ. 10. Leptosomidæ. II. Podargidæ. The Heterodactyle, which follow next in the Nomenclator,' consist of the single family Trogonidæ, the only form of the whole class of birds in which the fourth or outer digit is reversed instead of the second. The pterylosis of Trogon is also quite different from that of the other Zygodactylæ, being purely passerine, except as regards its long aftershaft.* The true Zygodactylæ in the Nomenclator' consist of four families besides the Cuckoos, namely the Galbulidæ, Bucconidæ, Rhamphastidæ, and Capitonidæ. To these must be added the Indicatoridæ, which do not occur in the New World. Indicator has now been conclusively shown to have nothing to do with either the Cuckoos (as supposed by the older authors) or with the Woodpeckers (as believed by Blyth†), but must form a family of itself, allied to the Capitonidæ.‡ Lastly, I would now propose to place together in one group, under the restricted title of "Coccyges," the two families Cuculidæ and Musophagidæ. I am not yet prepared to remove them to the neighborhood of the Gallinæ altogether, but (as above stated) am ready to allow that Prof. Garrod has shown good reasons for separating them from the rest of the Zygodactylæ. Moreover, on the whole, I have come to the conclusion that, looking to the successful assaults that have been made on Prof. Huxley's views as to the nature of the palate in the Pici and in the Trochilidæ, it will be a better arrangement to sink the Pici and Cypseli to the rank of suborders and to revive the term Picariæ for the whole of the three groups denominated in the *Nitzsch, Pterylogr. p. 93. † J. A. S. B. xi. p. 167 (1842). Cf. Sclater, Ibis, 1870, p. 176. For the species of Indicator consult Sharpe in Rowley's Orn. Misc. i. p. 192, and P. Z. S. 1878, p. 793. Nomenclator' Pici, Cypseli, and Coccyges. The order Picariæ may then be divided into the following six suborders: The Picariæ thus considered embrace altogether about 1600 species of birds referable, as shown above, to twenty-four families. 5. PSITTACI. The Parrots (Psittaci), annexed by Cuvier and his disciples to the Zygodactylæ, are now generally allowed to form one of the primary divisions of the Carinatæ, as was first, I believe, suggested by Nitzsch in 1829.* The affinities of this ancient group to other orders appear to be somewhat remote, but their most natural position seems to be between the Picariæ and the Accipitres. The best mode of subdividing this order has long been a matter of discussion, Dr. Finsch's mode of grouping, as well as those adopted by previous writers, being not very satisfactory. But a flood of light has been thrown upon this subject by Garrod's excellent memoir on the anatomy of the Psittacidæ,† and I think we may safely base our arrangement upon the results of his observations. This, indeed, I have already done in the last edition of the List of Vertebrated Animals living in the Zoological Society's Gardens' (1879), where I have arranged the Psittaci upon the following plan, of which the details are taken from Garrod's investigations : 6 A. Left carotid normal. A'. Orbital ring complete 1. Cacatuide. ... 2. Stringopida. 3. Palæornithida. 4. Psittacida. All the New-World Parrots belong to the last family. 6. STRIGES. That the Owls, with so many peculiarties in their organization,‡ should constitute an order separate from the Accipitres I think there is little doubt. There is no known intermediate form, un * Obs. de Avium art, carotide communi. Cf. Nitzsch, Pterylogr. p. 67. + P. Z. S. 1874, p. 586. less it may be said that Pandion approximates rather to the Striges in the absence of the aftershaft. In a previous paper in this Journal* I have given my reasons for dividing them into two families (Strigidæ and Asionida), which Prof. Newton† and Mr. Sharpe likewise agree to. The Accipitres, which follow naturally next to the Striges, are primarily divisible, as shown by Prof. Huxley,§ into three families, which I have termed Falconidæ, Cathartidæ, and Serpentariidæ. Garrod goes much further than Prof Huxley in distinguishing the two latter groups from the former.|| The Cathartida he holds to be much more nearly allied to the Storks than to the Falconidæ, and Serpentarius (sive Gypogeranus) he places, along with Cariama, among the Bustards. These two forms come in therefore in quite different parts of his " Systema." I confess I am not quite able to go so far as this, though I freely allow that the Cathartidæ (as already pointed out by Nitzsch, Pterylogr. p. 50) are in many respects very different from the rest of the Accipitres, and that the resemblance of Serpentarius and Cariama is most remarkable. But on the latter point Burmeister, no mean authority, has come to quite an opposite conclusion to Garrod. At any rate I see no justification for the course Mr. Sharpe has adopted (without stating any reasons) of placing Cariama among the Accipitres, still less for treating it as merely a genus of the subfamily Polyborina! 8. STEGANopodes. Although it is very easy to point out the defects in the arrangement of the remaining orders of birds (the Gallinæ, Grallatores, and Natatores) adopted by Cuvier and his disciples, it is by no means easy to suggest a better one. Let us first consider some of the weak points of the ordinary system. In the first place it is evident that the "digiti palmati," by which the Natatores are ordinarily characterized,†† is a very slight and super * Ibis, 1879, p. 351. Cat. Birds, ii. p. 289. || Ibid. 1874, p. 117. + Newton's Yarrell, i. p. 148. § P. Z. S. 1867, p. 462. ¶ "Beiträge z. Naturgeschichte des Seriema," Abh. nat. Ges. z. Halle, i. p. II. ++ Even by Sundevall, who says Nullo alio charactere opus est!" (Tentamen, p. 134). |